Suggestions
Elise Racine, MPA, MSc
Health/Tech Expert & Advocate, Oxford PhD Candidate
Elise Racine is a doctoral candidate and researcher at the University of Oxford, pursuing a PhD in Population Health.1 She joined the university in October 2021 as a Clarendon Scholar and recipient of the Baillie Gifford-Institute for Ethics in AI Scholarship.12
Academic Background
Elise holds the following degrees:
- PhD Candidate in Population Health, University of Oxford (ongoing)
- Master of Public Administration (MPA) with a concentration in digitalization and big data, Hertie School in Berlin
- Master of Science (MSc) with Distinction in Health and International Development, London School of Economics
- Bachelor of Arts (BA) with Honors in Sociology, Stanford University12
Research Focus
Her research centers on:
- Societal impacts of emerging technologies in global health
- Policy implications of biometrics, artificial intelligence, and mHealth
- Ethical challenges in infectious disease surveillance12
Professional Experience
Elise's background spans various sectors:
- Academic research
- Non-profit organizations
- Public health
- Private sector (think tanks, consulting, startups)1
Her professional experiences include:
- Innovating strategic solutions at a mission-driven consultancy
- Managing crises for a trauma-informed treatment center
- Building research programs for a think tank
- Leading fundraising efforts for an international non-profit
- Contributing to policy tools for ethical health resource allocation
- Founding a digital health app focused on public health issues on college campuses1
Affiliations and Achievements
- Affiliated with Oxford's Ethox Centre and Institute for Ethics in AI
- Recipient of the DAAD Prize 2020 during her MPA studies
- Jointly awarded the best performance prize for her MSc program at LSE12
Elise Racine is known for her interdisciplinary approach, combining expertise in health, technology, and ethics to address complex global health challenges.
Highlights
🚨 As an AI expert and social justice advocate, I spoke today at the U.S. Access Board's hearing on "Developing Artificial Intelligence (AI) Equity, Access & Inclusion for All."
In my testimony, I emphasized how participatory accountability and reparative mechanisms can create more inclusive, equitable AI systems. Some key points:
➡️ While AI has immense potential, it also poses significant risks, particularly for marginalized communities.
➡️ Algorithmic Impact Assessments, when designed with diversity and accessibility in mind, can foster accountability, transparency, inclusion, and equity. The key is meaningful, active engagement that goes beyond tokenism.
➡️ Algorithmic reparations offer guidance on how to meaningfully engage members of the disability community and actively prevent and undo harms in AI systems.
I urged the Access Board to integrate these concepts into AI policies and practices. For example:
1️⃣ Develop a disability-oriented algorithmic impact assessment toolkit that addresses the specific needs and concerns of the disability community.
2️⃣ Create platforms that foster ongoing dialogues among AI practitioners, disability advocates, researchers, and other stakeholders.
3️⃣ Implement inclusive, reparative data collection methods to address underrepresentation of diverse disability experiences and correct historical exclusion.
To achieve AI equity, access, and inclusion, it's imperative we center the voices of the disability community.
The Access Board is accepting written comments until October 31, 2024. Join this vital conversation! 🔗: https://lnkd.in/eActg_xH
#AI #AIEthics #AIGovernance #Accessibility #InclusiveTechnology #DisabilityRights #SocialJustice #AIA #AlgorithmicReparations
🚨 I'm honored to have been quoted in this comprehensive exposé by The Sick Times on the NIH's recent ME/CFS study. As I note, the study fits into a long-standing pattern of the NIH marginalizing and psychologizing myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME).
➡️ The study, which took eight years and $8 million to complete, has been met with serious concerns from the ME community. Issues include the small and unrepresentative patient sample, questionable testing choices, and potential bias from lead investigator Brian Walitt, who has a troubling history of dismissive remarks about ME/CFS patients.
➡️ To move forward, I would like to see the NIH acknowledge the flaws and limitations of this research, conduct larger studies that better represent people with ME (including those with severe ME), and significantly increase its budget for this complex, debilitating disease. NIH funding for ME/CFS has remained stagnant at $14–15 million annually—significantly less than diseases with comparable prevalence and/or burden. To be commensurate with disease burden, funding for ME/CFS would need to increase about 14-fold to roughly $203 million annually.
➡️ As the Covid-19 pandemic gives rise to a growing wave of individuals living with energy-limiting illnesses, the time for action is now. Yet the NIH continues to underfund and mishandle ME/CFS research. Experts like Todd Davenport are even calling for a retraction of the study due to "erroneous conclusions," including the use of a controversial "effort preference" construct that suggests a psychological framing of the disease.
➡️ Consequently, I and other advocates are seriously worried about the harm this study may cause, including being used to discredit patients. We must hold the NIH accountable.
Please check out the full article for more details on this critical issue: https://lnkd.in/eqmiyjXs
And thank you so much to both Betsy Ladyzhets and Miles W. Griffis for the incredible work they’re doing covering these important topics. 🙏
#MECFS #LongCovid #PASC #MECFSresearch #MECFSFunding #MillionsMissing #PwME #TimeForAction #NeglectedDiseases #BelieveME #MECFScrisis #myalgicencephalomyelitis #TheSickTimes #Journalism
